![]() |
Amtrak Train 67 at Williamsburg, Virginia; JPEG file; Sharpening applied in LR (click to enlarge) X-T1. 50-140mm f/2.8 lens @ 68.7mm; 1/400th sec. @ f/11; ISO 400 |
However, one setting is worthy of some additional discussion. That is the 'sharpening' setting. After a time experimenting with the various settings, I settled on a +1 setting for sharpening as a standard for me. Plus 1 seemed to provide an amount of in-camera sharpening that looked about right to me, in a general way. That setting produced a sharpening effect very similar to what I would have applied during editing of a RAW image. Using this setting, as a general rule, would allow me to send out JPEGS without additional editing.
As time passed and I made many, many JPEGS (along with RAW files), I began to notice that when it came to sharpening, one size didn't necessarily fit all. Different images had different uses and one sharpening setting didn't serve all of those different purposes as best it could. Some images were for viewing on a computer screen. Some were printed at different sizes. As we know, the amount of sharpening an image needs is largely dependent upon its final use and form.
If I were applying sharpening to individual images, the sharpening settings I would have applied would have been a bit different than the blanket +1 for which I had my camera set. Additionally, I use masking when applying sharpening so as to not sharpen those areas of an image that shouldn't receive it, such as a plain blue sky or other areas of little or no detail. I don't want to apply sharpening to smooth tones that have no detail.
Again, I started experimenting with different sharpening settings. Some of that experimentation included setting my JPEGs for basically no in-camera sharpening. On my X-T1, the closest I could get to that was -2. I then would apply sharpening in Lightroom CC. The sharpening applied in LR CC was better, or maybe more sophisticated (to my eye) than the in-camera "one size fits all" sharpening. As I mentioned, I could also apply masking to be able to not sharpen areas that don't require it. But there was one downside.
![]() |
100% crop; no in-camera sharpening applied; sharpening applied in Lightroom CC (click to enlarge) |
So, here is my compromise. I think that the +1 sharpening setting is still about right for me, as a general setting. However, I like the idea of sharpening individual JPEGs in Lightroom as it is more precise and each image gets a specific treatment. For now, I'm going to leave my sharpening setting at -2. However, if I need some "out of the box" JPEGs that look good, I can always use my RAW Converter in-camera and apply sharpening to the RAW image on a case by case basis as needed. Again, the in-camera RAW converter comes in very handy.
I may be a bit more picky than some of you. However, if I have such high quality tools as the X-T1, the Fujifilm lenses, Lightroom, etc., why wouldn't I take just a little extra time to maximize the final quality of my images? But that is just me.
Just FYI.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2016 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
One of the advantages of Olympus cameras is in my opinion the OV3 software - which lets one edit a file pretty much like the in-camera settings, only that you can do it afterwards on a much bigger and calibrated screen.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if other camera makers (like Fuji, Nikon etc.) allow the same with their software. If I save the image to a 16 bit .tif in OV3, I can still go on with any other raw converter for the finer settings...